Is it wrong if Sony Play-Doh was inspired by artists?
After all, that was a static image, and the ad is a moving thing – that alone is a leap of imagination.

Was it a sin that a Gorilla drumming had appeared in some crap ads previously (or was maybe inspired by The Mighty Boosh)? Does it really matter if Balls was done on a smaller scale prior to the ad?

Let’s stop being the critics of the best work we’re seeing come out of London agencies!

We all want great work – that’s what makes the job exciting. And, face it, this is the best, most talked about creativity that we’re seeing – ads that real people talk about and like, not just us advertising people – hence the debate. Unless someone wants to discuss why the majority of FMCG ads follow the exact same formula as each other (which is a far worse sin in my books).

So, unless you’re out there writing ideas like Balls, Paint, Play-Doh, Gorilla, and the like, then can you really question the inspiration points?

Incidentally, I don’t know Juan Cabral. This isn’t a defense for someone I know or ever worked with. But I’d rather see more ads like these being produced than argue over the source of his inspiration.

While I’m ranting, there’s an interesting website on this topic – the Wu Ming Foundation – where they believe in the motto “OMNIA SUNT COMMUNIA (All things are common)” and write about their idea of CopyLeft. Worth a read for mere curiosity!

Mother haven’t done much that isn’t interesting in the past year (well, ever, really). And this definitely falls into that category. You have to admire them for taking on a British institution and being so, well, British with it!

It’s a lovely, crafted, humorous take on the Post Office – slight reminiscent of old British comedy (it’s a role for Ronnie Barker, really). I’m not sure that I see the relevance of Joan Collins, but then I liked it, so maybe you just don’t need any more than that. Watch it and see how well they craft the product points in to a script that doesn’t feel heavy-handed, yet makes lots of product claims…

Still lovely, and probably dramatic in the regions it runs (assuming they haven’t seen ‘Balls’), but not quite as fresh when you have seen the three Fallon ads. Makes it clearer why you need to follow up Balls with Paint, then Play-Doh. Still fun to watch, though…

I’m sorry, because this is 6 months old. However, just in case you haven’t seen it – and I hadn’t before this weekend, when a friend showed it to me – then watch this Shell ad with the sound cranked up and enjoy 2 minutes of gear-head heaven…

Arnold tested the ad “1984” – that epic Apple ad that still gets mentioned in research groups and is one of the most famous ads of all time globally.
Except, they didn’t test it as an ad – they tested a re-created ‘animatic’ or ‘board-o-matic’ version.

Here’s the result, including the full animatic version (note how long they run – about 3 mins 30 secs to describe a 60″ commercial) AND the excerpts from the focus groups. Now, although the results are seriously shocking, bear in mind that the animatic they used was really good quality – they’re rarely that good. Also, it takes every bit of a finished film – which usually is better than the original script. So, to all intents and purposes, this is better than most stimulus produced for testing.

So, what does it really tell us?
That 1984, the commercial idea, is no longer relevant to consumers today?
That testing ads doesn’t work?
(both of which probably have a good degree of truth to them)

Or that we’re asking the wrong questions? Because, that for me is the right answer.

Ask people what they understand – dig for the message that is told. Then dig for the values – the softer associations and what they mean for this particular company. These are all questions that people can reasonably respond to. Without speculating or guessing at the answer.

But, DON’T ask people what they THINK of an ad. NOR what they would do to improve it. Don’t get them to list their likes and dislikes. And don’t ask them whether they felt it was clear who it was for. These are all questions that people can only guess at. Or that they’re not really qualified to answer.

We wouldn’t listen to our parents tell us how to edit/adapt/improve/change an ad developed by your best people, unless we heard the comment and said “Damnit, they’re right!” So why do we listen to consumers doing the same thing when we’ve asked them questions that are just as speculative?

Consumers can’t tell us the answers, but they can react to what they see and give us some indication of where we’re doing well and where we need to do some more thinking. Let’s not damn research for being useless if we don’t use it right – but let’s not blindly follow 20 people from the suburbs just because they’re “real people” either!

Profero (I’m presuming) have launched a countdown site for the site that will launch shortly – all for the new Mini.
Lots of tease with very little info of what to expect – which, curiously, actually left me wondering what I’d get if I checked back again tomorrow!

It’s made more interesting to blog about by the inclusion of this natty little embedded countdown widget. And a calendar thingy that will prompt you when the site launches… so it works well to prompt a return visit.

Click here to visit the site – and, look out for the puff of smoke (or stars, maybe) that give you clue where to click for some more action. Feels like a massive Christmas calendar to me – and I’m hoping that more content will open up over time – so it just gets more interesting.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m looking forward to seeing it on a big screen – live on TV. It just feels like it deserves more screen that a little window on the computer…

Meanwhile, have a look at the intro stuff – I love these little things while you wait for the page to load. People are getting really good at them and these are lovely examples – I caught a few snapshots, but there’s loads and new ones every time you visit (so far, at least!).

It’s hard to follow up a success like the Dove Evolution film.
So, does this?

It’s striking. Shocking in parts, even.
It’s got a deeper message rather than a blatant product sell.
It’s backed with a real program, so it’s not just comms.
All those are good things – impressive, weighty reasons to really be impressed by this.
But I just didn’t get the same gob-smacked feeling watching it. The first time.

So, I watched it again. And it hit me more. And so on… It grows on you.
This is great work. I don’t know that it will win Cannes next year, but it’s still great.

We had an evening session at WCRS (hosted by our Head of Digital, Laurence Parkes) to discuss the award-winning digital work from Cannes. Which you can peruse right here. And, needless to say, there’s some cracking stuff in there.

But it did prompt a lot of discussion about whether an online soap (like Brawny) is up to the standard of Nike+ (more of a Brand Utility or Product in its own right). Which then got some people thinking that doing ‘entertainment’ online isn’t good enough either. And, soon enough, you’ve reduced online to one possible outlet. Which is all wrong. At least, I think it’s wrong.

My fellow planner – Roisin – suggested that maybe there was a need for some taxonomy – so we start to judge one game against another – rather than judging a game against a viral ad. You could break down the entries into categories and then look at them in more detail. Which is interesting.

But it got me thinking about the fact that some ideas online keep on cropping up – the games, for instance. Or the ‘message sending’ devices. And the bespoke scare mails (like I want to see a ghost, which is freakin’ genius). Because you sort of get less excited by seeing ‘another’ one. And I wondered if it’s harder to keep on doing something new online. Although you could easily accuse TV ads of revolving around a series of ideas – it’s just how well they’re executed.

But, the more I think about it, the less I see this as the problem. Truth is, sending messages is something we all love doing. Playing games isn’t going to stop being fun. And something that makes you laugh, scream or think a bit will always entertain.

So, maybe we do need to compare like with like in digital more. Generate a reasonable delineation between different types of ideas. But we also need to look for how well it’s been done (added to what the underlying mechanism is). Because the people that do it better will continue to captivate audiences and generate interest. And that’s what we all want to achieve, isn’t it?

Like other media, people will soon joke that there are “no new ideas” in digital. But that won’t stop there being BETTER ideas!